...and Economic Justice for All

Welfare Reform for the 21st Century

Michael L. Murray

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781315284477
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The author presents an argument for a system of social insurance that replaces welfare with a Guaranteed Adequate Income. The book reviews public assistance programmes, and evaluates other plans that have been proposed.

1
Life Is Not Fair, But People Can Be

---

This chapter is about justice. We Americans certainly believe in justice. We grow up reciting:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

As youngsters, we did not give a lot of thought to what we meant when we said “and justice for all.” As adults, we may have some vague notion. It’s time to get at the essence of that notion. The primary issue in this chapter will be whether we wish to include economic issues in our concept of justice.

ECONOMIC JUSTICE —SHOULD IT BE A GOAL?

When we say “and justice for all” in our Pledge of Allegiance, we do not necessarily include any notions of income or wealth. Should they be included? For guidance we might look to our other important documents. We find in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America:

We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare. …

Here justice and the “general welfare” appear to be two different issues. Even in the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to our Constitution), there is no specific mention of economic rights.¹

According to the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men. …

Assuming for the time being that to be just is to grant “men” their “unalienable Rights,” there is no direct indication here that our founders meant to include any economic rights.²

The United States has, however, indicated some recognition of economic rights when it signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted by the United Nations in 1948). It includes the following:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family. …

Finally, our leaders have, on occasion, expressed a belief in economic rights:

At a news conference after her congressional appearance [following a trip to South America] she [Rosalyn Carter] was asked if she found a feeling that America should achieve full human rights itself before applying pressure for them in other countries. “I was asked about human rights here,” she replied, “and I told them that Jimmy [then President Carter] was committed to it and that he believed human rights did not mean just freedom from political oppression but also freedom from hunger, social and economic rights.” ³

Secretary of State Cyrus Vance has defined what the [Carter] administration means by human rights: “First, there is the right to be free from government violation of the integrity of the person. … Second, there is the right to the fulfillment of such vital needs as food, shelter, health care, and education. Third, there is the right to enjoy civil and political liberties.” ⁴

It is true these views were not often expressed throughout the years of the Reagan or Bush administrations, nor yet during Clinton’s term. Nonetheless, there is evidence at least one segment of the body politic holds them.⁵ Note, however, that the conclusion reached in this book (a recommendation for a guaranteed adequate income) does not require us to base it on a “right.”

Other Rights Require Economic Rights

Even if we, in the United States, do not directly recognize the rights of citizens to any measure of wealth or income,⁶ certainly the rights to life and the pursuit of happiness require some minimum level of economic well-being, at least in today’s society.⁷

One cannot live without the ability to purchase food. On this point it might be well to pause and contemplate a difference in the conditions faced by the average person, at the time the Constitution was written, from those faced today. At that time, many of the necessities of life were available for the taking. All that was required was that one make an effort. To say people had a right to sustenance would have been superfluous because, unless the person were physically incapable or physically restrained, food could generally be obtained (by hunting, fishing, gathering, or farming). Shelter could be obtained by felling trees or piling up sod or using animal skins. The point is that it was assumed that all had the rights to obtain these goods. Only as resources have become tied up—either by private interests or by the public at large through the government—has the notion of economic rights become important.

Today, this is no longer a reasonable assumption. There is very little land which is not either privately owned or publicly committed to a particular use.⁸ One reason homelessness is such a problem, for those of us with homes, is the homeless have no place to go to get out of the way. Today we must think in terms of a right to a place to live; two hundred years ago that was not a concern.⁹ Even such a vital necessity as water is no longer free for the finding. It is extremely difficult to find potable water today without paying for it.

The “pursuit of happiness” also requires some economic wherewithal. Now don’t jump to the conclusion that I am talking about any guarantee of happiness—I know we can never provide enough to accomplish this. I refer simply to the acknowledged right to pursue it. Some degree of economic well-being, as well as security, is necessary to create the conditions under which one can pursue happiness.

There are also economic implications of the right to a fair trial and the right to vote.¹⁰ Without nourishment it is difficult to exercise either of these rights.¹¹ The right granted in the Eighth Amendment (“excessive bail shall not be required”) is impossible to operationalize in cases where the defendant is indigent.

Rights Are Not a Necessary Basis for Economic Justice

A case can be made, as shown above, for providing economic rights in order to make other rights meaningful. I do not choose to rely on these arguments, however. Even though I believe they have merit, they leave too much room for reasonable disagreement. “Nobody owes me [or you] a living” is an often-heard response to any suggestion of a right to an income. It is simply not necessary to try to establish the existence of economic rights in order to make the case that justice requires everyone be provided with some level of income.

RELEVANCE OF DETERMINISM

Determinism provides a basis for this discussion of justice. This concept is developed more fully in a later chapter. For now, I would like simply to point out treating a person more or less favorably, based on who one is, is inconsistent with a determinist view. Even differential rewards and penalties, based on what one does, are difficult to justify. Since we are products of our inheritance and our upbringing, our accomplishments (or shortcomings) are also products of those factors. The credit (or blame) does not belong to us. Of course, once we start thinking this way we run into an “infinite regress.” Giving our parents credit (or blame) implies that their parents should get the credit or blame for their actions, and so on back. There really is no place for the buck to stop. This raises one of those conflicts between what we should believe and what we want to believe. It is only natural that we want to place the blame on, or give the credit to, someone. One scholar, Jennifer Trusted, speaks to this issue, noting “it [determinism] carries implications which conflict with our instinctive beliefs about people (including ourselves).”¹² My later discussion of determinism is an attempt to counter these “instinctive beliefs.” Readers who need more information on this issue might turn to that chapter before proceeding. For others, I simply note at this point that a concept of justice based in determinism does not have room for placing blame.

I cannot quarrel with Trusted’s conclusion that we have an inclination to hold ourselves and others responsible. I argue, however, that her conclusions are based on circular reasoning. According to her view, we should adopt a concept which allows us to hold people responsible because we feel it is necessary to hold people responsible. While it may be true we all have a need to hold others responsible, this need can be explained in ways which are consistent with determinism (without the circularity problem). One reasonable explanation is that we developed this attitude during the eons in which we knew very little about what makes people tick. (We did not know until recently, for example, that a chemical imbalance in the brain could account for some psychotic behavior.) Whenever we can’t explain the behavior of others, or ourselves, it makes sense to simply blame the person. However, the greater our ability to explain, the narrower the realm in which it is necessary to blame. Thus, this need to hold others responsible is really a psychological anachronism, having served us well in the millennia before we had explanations.

The second explanation is that we have learned as social animals that it is necessary to hold others responsible (and to expect that we ourselves will be held responsible) in order to develop a functioning society with rules of behavior. Trusted implies we should give precedence to our instinctive beliefs when these conflict with the scientific explanation. I am arguing the opposite—we must strive to overcome these instinctive views in light of the determinist evidence. This is an important point with respect to the arguments I make for justice.

When it comes to economic justice, a determinist view severely limits the occasions on which we can justify (or claim as just) any wealth differentials. First, however, let us consider whether economic issues should even be considered in a discussion of justice.

CONCEPTS OF JUSTICE

The focus of this book is on economic justice. We can approach that issue by first discussing the various concepts of justice in general. I’ll take as a given that when citizens of the United States say “with … justice for all” in pledging allegiance to the flag, they are not only saying that their country does provide justice for all but that it should do so. From this starting point, we are led to the following questions:

What does one mean when one says “and justice for all”?

What should one mean when making this statement?

These questions are both very difficult, if not impossible, to answer. Since people hold a wide range of views about what is “just,” we cannot know, without considerable inquiry, what any one person means. Given this range of views, it would be presumptuous of me to tell you what you should believe. What I propose to...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Tables
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Chapter 1 Life Is Not Fair, But People Can Be
• Chapter 2 Are You Worthy? Current U.S. Welfare Programs
• Chapter 3 The Market Who Gets What, Why, and Whether
• Chapter 4 Work—Who Needs It?
• Chapter 5 We Are What We Were
• Chapter 6 Why the Guaranteed Adequate Income
• Chapter 7 The History of Guaranteed Income Plans
• Chapter 8 The Guaranteed Adequate Income Proposal
• Chapter 9 Cost and Funding Calculations
• Chapter 10 Final Thoughts
• References
• Index